Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Relentless v. Department of Commerce

Back to Case Finder

CASE: Relentless Inc., et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, et al.

STATUS: Active

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: SCOTUS, 1st Cir., D. R.I.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island

DECIDING COURT: U.S. Supreme Court

OPENED: March 4, 2020

AGENCIES: Department of Commerce | National Marine Fisheries Service | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

FOCUS AREAS:

Judicial Deference

Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

CASE SUMMARY

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implemented a Final Rule in 2020 to force fishing companies like Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc., and Seafreeze Fleet LLC, to pay for human at-sea monitors aboard their vessels. Congress never gave the agency authority to launch such a program. This at-sea monitor mandate violates the Constitution’s Article I, and the agencies have exceeded the bounds of their statutory authority. NCLA’s clients are small businesses that commercially fish for Atlantic herring (as well as mackerel, Loligo and Illex squids, and butterfish). Paying for monitors would cost them more than $700 per day, substantially cutting into—or even exceeding—their daily fishing profits for herring. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Final Rule, deciding that broad “necessary and appropriate” language in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (“MSA”), which governs U.S. fisheries, augmented the agency’s regulatory power. It then relied heavily on Chevron deference to uphold the agency’s ostensibly reasonable interpretation of a supposedly ambiguous federal statute. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected similar government arguments in NCLA’s Mexican Gulf Fishing Company, et al. v. NOAA, et al. case. That court eschewed Chevron and set aside a different NOAA Fisheries rule in February that required constant GPS tracking of recreational charter fishing vessels.

When a federal judge defers to an agency’s interpretation of law, doing so denies due process of law to the entity opposed to the government in that litigation. Employing such a deference also abandons a judge’s Article III duty of judicial independence. The Chevron doctrine could not be allowed to stand.

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned  the Chevron doctrine and vacated the First Circuit’s decision, a monumental victory for NCLA and the country as a whole.

OUR CLIENT

Relentless, Inc., Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
Kara Rollins
Litigation Counsel
Philip Hamburger
Chief Executive Officer
Margaret A. Little
Senior Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Garrett Snedeker
Staff Attorney

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply Brief in Supportt of Motion for Summary Judgement and Response to Defendants' Supplemental Brief

November 12, 2024 | Read More

Defendants' Supplemental Brief

October 25, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

September 26, 2024 | Read More

Judgement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

July 31, 2024 | Read More

Order and Judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court

July 30, 2024 | Read More

SEE 31 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Pushes Court to Reel in Unlawful Fishery Monitoring Rule After Supreme Court Sinks Chevron Deference

September 27, 2024 | Read More

Seven Supreme Court Victories Underscore NCLA’s Success in Limiting Unlawful Administrative Power

August 19, 2024 | Read More

In Landmark Victory for Civil Liberties, NCLA Persuades Supreme Court to Overturn Chevron Deference

June 28, 2024 | Read More

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in NCLA’s Relentless Case Seeking to Overturn Chevron Deference

January 17, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Reply Brief in Relentless Case Counters Government’s Claims on Judicial Deference to Agencies

January 5, 2024 | Read More

SEE 12 PRESS RELEASES
IN THE MEDIA

Overturning Chevron Is a Major Victory

September 19, 2024

Will Lower Courts Preserve the Administrative State?

September 4, 2024

Chief Justice Roberts’s Two Landmark Opinions Turn Tide Toward Liberty

July 3, 2024

A Watershed Supreme Court Term Will Not Drown The Administrative State

June 6, 2024

How to Defeat the Administrative State

February 22, 2024

SEE 10 MEDIA MENTIONS
RELATED CASES
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • Aposhian v. Garland

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Guidance Abuse

    Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

    Case Active - January 7, 2019

    Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    View Case
  • Howard and Karen Baldwin v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed - February 24, 2020

    Agencies: Internal Revenue Service

    View Case
  • Marcus Broadway v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: U.S. Sentencing Commission

    View Case
  • Thomas H. Buffington v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Department of Veterans Affairs

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.